memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha talk:Category tree
This talk-page is for discussing single categories, and for general discussion on the categories. For the original category tree suggestions, see Memory Alpha talk:Category tree/Tree_suggestions. Single categories List categories with existing "List of ..." article Suggesting whole category trees obviously leads to lengthy discussions. This is a necessary process, of course, but to get things started another parallel approach might be useful. My suggestion is the following: If a "List of X" already exists, and if this list is unannotated (just links to articles, no additional text for each entry, no pairs of links, etc.), then suggest the most generic form of this list as a new category below (for example, don't suggest "24th century starfleet personnel" or "inhabited planets" yet, just "starfleet personnel" (or "personnel"?) or "planets". You might want to add your opinion about possible sub- and super-categories, but those comments shouldn't be considered mandatory or obligatory yet. Each editor may vote on that suggestion: *'Agree' - No further comments necessary *'Disagree' - only if the suggested category violates the rules stated above or you want to suggest a better name, please comment on your reasons If, at least 5 days after your initial suggestion, there are no unresolved disagreements and at least one agreement, you may create the suggested category. For the moment, don't delete the original "List of X" article - this can be done later. -- Cid Highwind 23:08, 22 Dec 2004 (CET) Vote on this procedure Please sign in the appropriate subsection if you agree or disagree. If you disagree, give a reason. If, after 5 days, there's no unresolved disagreement and at least three people agree, this procedure should be considered accepted. :Procedure accepted after 5 days. -- Cid Highwind 00:21, 2004 Dec 28 (CET) Agree * Cid Highwind 23:08, 22 Dec 2004 (CET) * Mike, Kobi and EtaPiscium already supported some of the categories suggested below - I'd like to count that as an implicit agreement to this suggestion to get things started. Let me know if this is incorrect. -- Cid Highwind 12:32, 2004 Dec 26 (CET) Disagree category:Species Possible subs: sentient species, non-sentient, etc.. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 22:01, 27 Dec 2004 (CET) :I would suggest life-forms instead, since "species" is a rather specific biological term. I agree with the split into "sentient" and "non-sentient", and then the subgroups that have already been established for those two. -- EtaPiscium 00:29, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) ::Life-forms might be a rather inclusive topic. I'd like to see a bit finer granularity. But I do agree that 'life-form' is a better choice than 'species'. Inasmuch as there's no list right now, I'd recommend deferring this category until some of the list based ones are up and running, and we have some experience to build on. -- Balok 02:02, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) :Which existing "List of ..." article should be the basis of this category? Please link to it in your suggestion, as explained above. Otherwise, please move your suggestion to another section. Thanks. (Clarification: I '''disagree' with this suggestion for technical purposes. I tried to define a relatively strict procedure with a narrow focus to allow the "least controversial" list categories to pass quickly. For this suggestion to belong in this section (instead of "Category tree suggestions", for example) a generic "List of species" should exist, which IMO is not the case.) -- Cid Highwind 00:41, 2004 Dec 28 (CET) ::Oh, in that case I think it's premature to create this category, since it doesn't correspond to any current list. -- EtaPiscium 00:52, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) ::There are the "List of X Quadrant species" articles, but I agree that these aren't the easiest lists. I also vote premature. -- Harry 16:58, 2 Jan 2005 (CET) Other single category suggestions Category for "Meta-Trek" (name to be found) An important category would be one collecting all articles we call "Meta-Trek". This category would be the supercategory for categories such as "Episodes", "Movies", "Performers", but should also be used to collect the various articles about Star Trek as a franchise (including the "List of Trek actors birthdays", the "List of 47 references" etc.). I don't really like the title "Meta-Trek" as a name for this category, though. I'd like to suggest Category:Production information, but perhaps you can think of a better title? -- Cid Highwind 11:46, 2005 Jan 20 (CET) :'Production information''' is fine by me. Or perhaps something like Category:About Star Trek? -- Harry 20:33, 20 Jan 2005 (CET) :I agree that we need to group "Episodes." "Movies," "Books," together. I suggest Category:Source Media. Everything here is about Star Trek. Drhaggis 02:20, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) ::Let's simplify that -- either Category:Sources or Category:Media -- if we choose "sources" for all of our canon episodes and productions, then media can be all other forms of star trek: licensed novels; games; and comics; as well as the various companies that make them. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 02:24, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) :Splitting canon from non-canon is a must. Should we include that distiction in the category? Category:Canon Sources and Category:Additional Media perhaps? Too much? Drhaggis 03:06, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) Since "canon" isn't a concept we have to define (although a definition of it is reprinted here), and since we already have a page defining valid resources, I don't really see the logic in adding this concept to the suggestion of a category to simply distinguish "in-universe" from "out-of-universe" articles. Keep in mind that a "Canon source" category couldn't simply include the "Episodes" category, for example, because that one contains the "non-canon" TAS episodes. By the way, the canon policy page uses the term Trek franchise - we could either use that one as our category name or should change that page to contain the name we choose here. -- Cid Highwind 00:08, 2005 Jan 23 (CET) Any other opinions? After thinking about it again, I prefer Trek franchise to the earlier suggestion Production information - it better matches the intended scope of the category as a collection of everything that is not in-universe (and it is a term already used elsewhere). About Star Trek is a close contender. -- Cid Highwind 21:51, 2005 Jan 27 (CET) Television Category We there should be a Category: Television Series or similar to collect together the existing Category: Episodes, and to place the master article for each series. Drhaggis 22:07, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) :Isn't Category:Episodes exactly what you are describing? It contains the 6 "series subcategories" and could contain additional information about "episodes" in general... -- Cid Highwind 23:47, 2005 Jan 22 (CET) I'm thinking more like *Undetermined "Top-level Media" Category **Television Shows ***Episodes **Movies **Books **Video Games TV shows is where we place the episodes category, any lists of episodes, all the articles on the existing tv shows, Info on Star Trek: Phase II, any "list of X episodes" articles. Drhaggis 00:17, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) :What else would the Television Shows category contain, apart from one link to the episodes category? The Media category might be useful, but that is already being discussed in the above section. I don't see the for a Television Shows category, since we already have Category:Episodes. -- Harry 23:48, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) Where else would we categorize master articles such as Star Trek: Voyager and their ilk? It would also hold any documentaries and specials and allow for a cross-ref with all television list categories. For example "List of XXX episodes" would go in Category: Lists and Category: Television Shows as Wikipedia does it. Is Episodes a top level category? Drhaggis 00:23, 24 Jan 2005 (CET) :Well, in the unnamed category for "out-of-universe" information that I suggested above, I guess? It would contain the "Episodes" category directly; I don't think we need another category layer between these two categories. "Books" (or better yet, "Novels" and "Reference books"?) would be another good subcategory, though. Regarding Wikipedia, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia "about everything", including many television series. Memory Alpha is an encyclopedia about just six - we probably don't need the same level of detail as Wikipedia. Episodes would not be a top level category, but a subcategory of Trek franchise (or whatever name we choose). -- Cid Highwind 21:39, 2005 Jan 27 (CET) Star Trek: Voyager would be considered "out-of-universe"? Odd. It may actually be easier to determine the lowest level categories first. Once most articles are categorized, forming and changing the tree is less painfull. Do we honestly think that we can "lock" the tree in place on a Wiki? Come to think of it it is less like a tree because several of the smaller nodes will cross. Drhaggis 03:10, 28 Jan 2005 (CET) :Of course... How could an article about a series (movie/novel/...) set in a fictional universe be a part of that universe? The events happening in that series are, but the series itself is not. :Regarding the suggested procedure, I think we are having this discussion page exactly because we know that we can't "lock" the tree completely - but by discussing all ideas first instead of simply implementing any or all of them, we're avoiding much redundant work and categories that simply don't make sense... -- Cid Highwind 12:03, 2005 Jan 28 (CET) Category:Performers redux Now, after having created and tested several different categories, I want to bring up "Performers" again. The original discussion didn't come to any agreement (see: Memory Alpha talk:Category tree/Tree suggestions), and the prematurely created categories still exist. I suggest (again) to create just one category for performers. No SERIES performers and definitely no SERIES SEASON performers categories. I still believe that both subcategorizations are too arbitrary in this case, because several performers (1 performer = 1 person) appeared in different series and many of them in different seasons. -- Cid Highwind 23:56, 2005 Jan 22 (CET) :I agree that season performers is a bad idea, but I know that the Performers cat will get significantly large, and will need to be broken up somehow. Perhaps we can wait until the cat is full and new subcats will reveal themselves. Drhaggis 00:22, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) If you read the early discussions that were moved to the page I mentioned above, you will see that I think that "breaking up" categories just because they are too big is not a good idea. I think that related categories should be "exclusive" - any article should belong to either one or the other, not to both at the same time. Perhaps there are possible subcategories for performers working that way, but I think that, at the moment, it would be best to just use one category. -- Cid Highwind 16:22, 2005 Jan 23 (CET) I've read much of the early discussions and can only determine that there are no real conclusions on how to approach categorizations. It is infact very good policy to break up large categories, providing that the sub categories are useful, significantly populated and logical. Unfortunately one can not always guess what sort of data one wants to pull from the wiki. Having "XYX season #" categories is silly because many actors span seasons and series, resulting in overcategorization. I think having a "Performers" cat with a "main performers" sub cat would be a really good start. Drhaggis 19:32, 23 Jan 2005 (CET) I believe this is a valid category, but I support series performers. I think lumping the performers from all the series together will be too unwieldy. What if someone does appear in more than one series? So they have more than one category entry. I don't see what's wrong with that. I do feel, after some reflection, that splitting it down to the season is too finely grained. -- Balok 01:21, 29 Jan 2005 (CET) Category:Non-sentient animals I think this could be a good category, filled with references to all the non-sentient creatures from Star Trek, such as Spot, Butler and even Picard's Lionfish Livingstone. What does anyone else think? zsingaya 15:33, 30 Jan 2005 (CET) :Is this a suggestion for a "list" of individual pets? In that case, I'd suggest another category title, Domestic animals (or Pets, although I'd prefer the former). If it is a category of "animal species", it should be called that, (or "non-sentient species", perhaps) - but in that case, the category shouldn't contain any individual animals... -- Cid Highwind 18:40, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) Well, there are references to individual animals, perhaps a category showing the different non-sentient animals in Star Trek would be useful, because it could then link to the individual animals. I'm not sure how many official pets were mentioned, off the top of my head, I can only think of Spot, Butler, Picard's fish, Janeway's Dog, Archer's Dog Porthos, although I'm sure there must be more. There must be a way to integrate them with un-named non-sentient species, such as Targ. zsingaya 21:25, 30 Jan 2005 (CET) :The problem is that one category for both "individual animals" and "animal species" would be mixing two completely different concepts - a similar idea would be to have one category for both Worf (a member of one sentient species) and Romulans, Ferengi and Bajorans (other sentient species). Also, I think that "non-sentient animals" would be a redundant title. Aren't animals non-sentient by definition? -- Cid Highwind 22:22, 2005 Jan 30 (CET) Accepted categories These categories have been accepted. Discussion&vote were moved to their talk pages. *Category:Planets *Category:Sectors *Category:Nebulae *Category:Moons *Category:Clusters *Category:Delphic Expanse *Category:Titles *Category:Mirror universe *Category:Weapons *Category:Hand-held weapons *Category:Episodes +6 subcategories "XYZ episodes" *Category:Movies Maintenance categories We can use categories to help with the regular maintenance task of listing specific articles somewhere ("attention needed", "featured article" etc.) by creating a category and adding it to the relevant template. I suggest to use the prefix "Memory Alpha" for all maintenance categories that are included via a template. -- Cid Highwind 16:40, 2005 Jan 18 (CET) Accepted categories ;Category:Orphaned categories : maintenance category for all "uncategorized categories". ;Category:Memory Alpha featured articles : category for all featured articles. Use via template only. ;Category:Memory Alpha pages needing attention : supercategory for "special" PNA categories - also category for PNAs that don't belong on those subcategories. Use via template only. ;Category:Memory Alpha inaccurate articles : category for "inaccurate" PNAs. Use via template only. ;Category:Memory Alpha incomplete articles : category for "incomplete" PNAs. Use via template only. ;Category:Memory Alpha unformatted articles : category for "unformatted" PNAs. Use via template only. General discussion This is taking forever This is taking forever. The current (IMO logical) suggestions can be made in a preliminary catergory tree, so we can get underway categoring (or whatever the word is) all pages. besides, even if we make one mistake, we can allways edit. Nothing's written in stone. We should get started. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 16:20, 13 Sep 2004 (CEST) I've created a preliminary version in the main article. This should serve to clarify this discussion and help draw out more discussion so this proces will be finished this century. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 15:55, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST) :I moved your suggestion to this page instead. IMO, the article itself should be reserved for the final version to avoid confusion. -- Cid Highwind 16:02, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST) Fundamental Categories So, first things first, then. What should the fundamental categories (those at the top (or bottom, depending on how you view it) of the tree) be? I think they should follow the same setup as the current Main Page divisions: *'People' *'Society and Culture' *'Science and Technology' *'Space Travel and Hardware' *'Around the Universe' (this would include the Timeline) *'Meta-Trek' (this can encompass Episodes and Movies, Other Sources, and the Production Crew section of People) This would only leave Reference Tables uncovered - that should get a category of its own, but not a fundamental one. I was aiming for something snappier, like "People, Places, Races, Ships"... but it wasn't 'inclusive' enough. :D -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 03:00, Sep 3, 2004 (CEST) : That looks good to start with, Michael. I would suggest calling the last one Production Information. I've never liked the term "Meta-Trek", to be honest. : Something that's important to mention is that articles are allowed to be included in multiple categories. Therefore, an article for Captain Sisko might be listed in Category:Main character and Category:Starfleet officer. : I'd also suggest we have a single overriding category for "Episode" and a single overriding category for "Timeline". For the former, it might make sense to break them down by series, but we've already got a full listing of the series links thanks to the browser bar that's part of each episode page's template. : So, here's my fleshed-out idea for the starting category tree: * People ** Main Characters ** Recurring Characters ** Guest Characters ** Starfleet Officers ** ... * Society and Culture * Science and Technology (includes "hardware") * Space Travel ** Starships ** Shuttlecraft * Around the Universe * Production Information ** Actors and Actresses ** Writers and Staff ** Directors : I think that's about all for now. I'm sure I'll think of more ideas later on, of course... ;-) -- Dan Carlson | Talk 15:45, Sep 3, 2004 (CEST) ::Yeah, as I say, it makes sense to follow the setup we have arranged on the Main Page at the moment, then filtering down into the subsections that have been set up in the same manner - that way we keep the same 'directory tree' that has already been established, allowing an easy replacement system as the categories roll out. ::As for the episodes, I still think we should link them into the background area, divide by series then season. A single category would get rapidly overpopulated (of course, like the series/season pages at the moment, each episode can be categorised in both). -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 17:06, Sep 3, 2004 (CEST) The simplest (and perhaps best) way, would be to create as head categories People, Around the Universe etc.., make Main Characters, Starships etc.. subcategories, and create seperate subcategories in those for each series: Category:TOS Recurring characters, sub of Recurring Characters, sub of People. The easiest way to get this started would be to simply go to the main page and replace People with Category:People, and fan out from that. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 16:48, 3 Sep 2004 (CEST) :Which is what has already been suggested. Except that categories are not yet enabled. Replacing the Main Page classification now would a) be futile and b) risk losing the data we have already by cutting the pages adrift. Populate the categories first, then, once that is done to a sufficiently acceptable state, we can replace the standard headings. Don't start jumping the gun. The standard system has served us well so far. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:57, Sep 3, 2004 (CEST) I would take what you have suggested and modify it slightly: *Characters (would you think of all Xindi as "people"?) *Society and culture *Science and technology (incl. "space travel") *Around the universe *Production information *Reference *Memory Alpha (include community and fan stuff) I think "Characters" might be preferred if the "Production information" is kept in its own section. Also, I would think the space ships are considered "technology" for the purpose of classification. —Mike 09:22, Sep 30, 2004 (CEST) :I don't know if a simple top-down approach is enough to get things going in this case. Perhaps we should collect all possible category suggestions in a "wishlist" and create a structure later? -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST) :::Well, I think that "beings" is preferable to "people" or "characters" then, but I like "characters" the least. I know that "locations" are still being discussed, but would there be any problems with starting to add category elements to technology and starships, and then use the categories special page to tweak the structure as it gets added to? There hasnt been any work on suggestions for categories in two months, maybe pushing forward and starting might give us momentum to get the larger structure organized? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:47, 7 Dec 2004 (CET) :::: I strongly recommend to restrict it to a field test first, when we introduced the categories in MA/de we noticed quite a lot do not make sense and must be moved. Also on a side notice, when looking at the suggested categories I saw they are all in plural, again something which makes no sense. -- Kobi 19:18, 7 Dec 2004 (CET) Singular vs. Plural category titles Copied from somewhere else on this page: :Wikipedia uses both singular (to list "topics relating to", similar to "see also" sections) and plural category titles (to list "instances of", a.k.a. "list categories") - in our case "Planets" would be a list of all planets (but nothing else), while "Planet" could contain articles like planetary classification (but probably wouldn't link to each and every planet). We may choose a different naming convention, of course, but I think it makes sense if we are allowing "list categories" to exist. -- Cid Highwind 20:26, 2004 Dec 25 (CET) We should come to an agreement here, soon - preferably before the first single categories suggested above are created. I like the convention of having plural titles for lists and singular titles for "related topics" and would like to see this implemented on MA as well. Does someone disagree? -- Cid Highwind 20:28, 2004 Dec 28 (CET) :I don't. I also agree that we should 'get a move on'. I haven't been participating in much of these discussions (I still had DNS troubles at the time). I think we need one big final election in the near future, and stick to it. I think we just have to come to some form of compromise. -- Harry 14:08, 30 Dec 2004 (CET) ::I don't think "one big final election" is appropriate regarding categories (or even possible - we don't even know which general structure should be the result; it surely isn't a single tree, for example). By making one small step at a time, a consensus seems to be much easier to achieve. We can also use those first categories to test the usefulness of further categories or category structures. ::Regarding the original topic: Any further comments regarding plural categories? Anyone? :) -- Cid Highwind 14:48, 2004 Dec 30 (CET) Reminder - no new categories, please I will answer to the discussion above later (when I have the time), but meanwhile... Could you please stop creating new categories and adding too many articles to the already existing ones? This discussion was started explicitly to come to an agreement before categories are created - let's just keep that in mind. The existing ones (Performers,TOS performers, TS1P, TS2P, TS3P) should be enough for testing purposes, and I also see some minor problems with them already. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 09:47, 21 Dec 2004 (CET) :Categories appear to require a level of user consensus that seems unlikely to occur. I have come to wonder if they're even a good idea... -- Balok 00:36, 22 Dec 2004 (CET) ::Categories don't really need this level of consensus, but that’s the way it seems to be going. They are my preferred way of navigating, so I hope things loosen up soon so. Drhaggis 03:21, 27 Jan 2005 (CET) :::The problem is, that there is concern that if articles are categorized in a haphazard manner, it will lead to extensive recategorizing and resorting with a possible loss of our pre-existing list structure. Add to the the reluctance to proliferate unnecessary "List Categories," which may cause extemely unnecessary article edits to every categorized article, should the category be found to violate a naming convention, which is still under discussion (as per the non-existant category tree). For example, if an unnecessary category is created and enabled, and contains 100 articles, and we find that we have to remove the category for whatever reason, thats 200 article edits (once to add and once to remove) that we would have to perform. This is stressful to the database size and server. :::If you have a preference for a category tree structure, or the naming conventions for such (for example a subdivision like the "Meta Trek" portion or the cartogrpahy suggestions), enabling that suggestion might get a group of categories approved en masse. Just something to consider. :::Otherwise, I'm sure that categories that have unanimous support could be pushed through in a few days, perhaps? We could propose a change in that procedure now that we've seen success: If a single category suggestion matches (as a "sibling") to a previously approved category -- in a sense its naming convention, possible supercategory location or subcategory containment has already been approved. Essentially, we're just asking that a new category is approved here before being implemented -- i think its a sensible precaution. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 05:14, 27 Jan 2005 (CET) Do we need to break this page up? MediaWiki warned me about editing this page; that some browsers might have trouble because it is so large. I have had no difficulty (using Firefox 1.0), but it would be a shame to lock someone out inadvertently. -- Balok 02:02, 28 Dec 2004 (CET) :The page is quite large, but all different sections are still active, so I see no easy way to archive some of the content at the moment. I also think that most modern browsers are able to handle this page size, and "section editing" (is that feature activated by default, I don't know?) should solve the problem for anyone else. Some of the content should be archived later, of course. -- Cid Highwind 20:21, 2004 Dec 28 (CET) :Perhaps the sections could be moved to subpages? Dma 02:18, 2 Jan 2005 (CET) :Section editing was not enabled for me, so I'm going to guess it's not enabled by default. If you want to edit by section and it's not enabled (you don't see little 'Edit' links to the right of each heading level), then go to the 'Misc settings' page on your preferences. It should be obvious which box to check. -- Balok 01:32, 6 Jan 2005 (CET) :Since the single category voting mechanism is used more often now, I've moved the large tree-suggestion section to Memory Alpha talk:Category tree/Tree suggestions, and moved the voting section to the top. It should make it easier to find for Archivists. I really like this voting scheme, so perhaps we can make a dedicated page for it? Something like Memory Alpha:Votes for Categories? -- Harry 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (CET)